HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-09-21; City Council; 538; Alder AV lot E vacationCITY OF C A R L S B A D. CA L I F'O R N IA -. T. H E - Agenda Bill No. .rag Date: September 21, 1971
Referred To:
Subject: Submi t ted By:
Request for Vacation of Lot ''E'' (Alder Ave',) City Engineer
Carlsbad Manor, by Richard E. Geyer
Statement of the Matter
Lot ''E'' (see Exhibit "A") was offered to the City for dedication as a
future street when the final tract map for Carlsbad Manor Unit No. 1 .
was approved by the City Council on October 7, 1969.
The street was inciuded:
property, 2) to provide a public connection between Carlsbad Manor and
the Carlsbad Highlands area to the east, and 3) to carry driinage from
the higher lands to the east.
1) to provide public street access to adjacent
The owner of fee interest in Lot ''E'' has requested that the City vacate
its rights to the lot,
In our opinion, the street is not needed for motorized vehicular traffic.
However, residents in the area have requested that-it be retained for
pedestrian and bicycle traffic (see Exhibits B & C). Provisions for
drainage must be considered. The width could be reduced and still ade-
quately provide for the abpve uses.
At the time the final map was submitted for Council consideration, the
developer wished to defer consideration of the elimination of Lot
as a future street. Consideration at that time would have required an
additional hearing before the Planning Commission and would have re-
sulted in the expiration of the tentative map.
If the Council wisies to consider vacation, the area will be posted and
a public hearing held, as part of the normal vacation procedure.
"E"
Exhibit
A) Vicinity sketch. ..
B)
C) Letter to City Manager from Mr. and Mrs. Raymond J. Ward.
Letter to City Manager from Dr, and Mrs. Edward A. Richards.
k - 1. a
Staff Recommendation
If the Council desires: . 'i -- . .
* I i Adopt a motion directing'the City Engineer to begin vacatio; proceedings
for Lot "E", Carlsbad Manor Unit No, 1,
AB No. 538 Date:
..
. -=.
. . City Manager's Recommendation .-
. 9/21/71 .On the basis of prior experience with pedestrian walkways of the type suggested for Lot "E", it is recommendegl that this project not be
* .considered for Lot "E". The main objections to the walkway are as follows:
1. Cost of improveuents vs. area of benef-i t.
2. Continuing police problem.
3. Continuing litter and maintenance-problem. ..
. 4. Introduction of pedestrian and bicycle traffic i'nto a cul de sac- street where. homeowners undoubtedly only anticipated such- traf.fic - from residences on the cul de sac.
Our recdmmendation is that the City Engineer -be instructed to begin vaca-
. tion proceedings with any necessary drginage or utility easements to be
. retained. i
12/7/71' Concur with recommendation of City Engineer. (See attached report)
Council 'Action -. . (see attached sheet)
-2-
. ,. .
I
>
.
.'
I